2. Appropriate at this juncture to note that the petitioner
passed. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated
06.06.2011 dismissed the said petition. Being aggrieved by the
order dated 31.01.2012. The Division Bench of this Court at
5. He extensively referred to the judgment of Apex Court
in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs
Manoharlal and others reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 with
regard to the applicability of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of
the Act, 2013 to the fact situation of the matter, and submitted
that even under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 24
the acquisition requires to be declared as having lapsed.
NC: 2025:KHC:7510
6. It is his submission that even as interpreted by the
Apex Court the purpose and intent of sub-section (2) of Section
24 of the Act, 2013 is to save the lands from acquisition in
respect of which neither the award is passed nor compensation
paid and the possession is not taken within the said period of 5
years before coming into force of the Act, 2013.
7. Referring to Annexure-U a notification issued under
sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act
wherein the date of taking possession is shown as 29.10.2011,
learned counsel insists that the said date falls within the
window period of 5 years as held by the Apex Court and as
provided under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013,
as such it has to be held possession not having been taken as
contemplated giving raise to cause of action under sub-section
(2) of section 24 of the Act, 2013.
8. The other limb of argument is that though the
respondent state has furnished the records with regard to
purported deposit of compensation with the Treasury,
admittedly no notice under sub-section (2) of Section 12 has
been served on the petitioners which is a mandatory
NC: 2025:KHC:7510
requirement without which the process of passing the award
would not and cannot be held to be completed in the manner
known to law.
9. On these principal grounds seeks for allowing of the
petition.
10. In response learned HCGP referring to the records
submits that the petitioners themselves had participated in the
award proceedings and even made claim statement before the
land acquisition officer for determination of compensation.
They having participated in the proceedings mere non issuance
of the notice under sub-section (2) of Section 12 would not
render the award proceedings void or illegal. He further
submits the award amount of Rs.1,25,000/- has been deposited
in the year 1986 before the State Treasury. He submits once
the award is passed and the amount having been deposited in
the Treasury the obligation contemplated under the Land
Acquisition Act stands completed and petitioners cannot insist
for issuance of notice under Section 12 inasmuch as petitioners
had consciously participated in the proceedings. As regards
taking possession is concerned learned HCGP submits
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7510
possession having been taken on 29.10.2011 much prior to
coming into force of Act, 2013 petitioners cannot seek to take
benefit by invoking sub-section (2) of Section 24 as sought to
be made, since the proceedings of passing award and taking
possession stood completed and the land stood vested with the
State free from all encumbrances prior to coming into force of
the Act, 2013. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition.
11. Sri T.Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.5 taking this Court through the records and the
judgment of Apex Court in the case of Indore Development
(supra) submits that once the compensation is determined and
the same is deposited with the Treasury and the possession is
taken much prior to coming into force of Act, 2013 all that the
petitioners would be entitled to even if they have any grievance
is only to the extent of compensation and payment of interest
as contemplated under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act
corresponding to Section 80 of the Act, 2013. He submits
petitioners having consciously participated in the award
proceedings cannot turn around and claim any benefit of they
not having been issued notice under Section 12(2) of the Act,
2013. He refers to the orders passed by the Division Bench of
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7510
this Court to contend all that liberty reserved to the petitioners
was with regard to applicability of Section 11A of the Act alone
and with regard to non passing of the award if any. Such a
liberty cannot be extended by the petitioners to invoke
provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013.
Hence seeks for dismissal of the petition.
12. Heard and perused the records.
13. The admitted facts of the matter are as under:
a) petitioners were the owners of land measuring 5 acres 12
guntas in Sy.No.2/2 and 3 acres in Sy.No.5/7 of Makali village,
Dasanpura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk.
b) That the aforesaid lands were notified for acquisition in
terms of preliminary notification dated 24.04.1976 followed by
final notification dated 25.04.1977.
(c) Though in the earlier round of litigation the petitioners had
contended that the award has not been passed, hence sought
for quashing of the proceedings, upon production of records by
the learned HCGP in this round of litigation it is clear that the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7510
petitioners had indeed participated in the award proceedings
which is not disputed.
(d) Award was admittedly passed on 22.09.1986 and the same
was approved on 23.09.1986 within two years as contemplated
under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
(e) It is also a admitted fact in view of notification under sub-
section (2) of Section 16 produced at Annexure-U that an
extent of 3 acres 38 guntas in Sy.No.2/2 albeit, as contended
by the petitioner which ought to have been Sy.No.5/7, has
been taken on 29.10.2011.
14. In the light of aforesaid undisputed factual aspects
of the matter the point which requires to be considered is
"whether the petitioners are entitled to raise the grounds
contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act,
2013?
Appropriate to refer to Section 24 which reads as under:
24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894
shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.
(1)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case
of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, (1 of 1894)-(a)where no award under
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7510
section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made,
then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of
compensation shall apply; or
(b)where an award under said section 11 has been made, then
such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said
Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed.
(2)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in
case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, (1 of 1894) where an award under the
said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the
commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the
land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid
the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the
appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the
proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with
the provisions of this Act:
Provided that where an award has been made and
compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not
been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all
beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under
section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to
compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
15. Applicability aforesaid provisions of sub-section (2)
of Section 24 and their meaning and interpretation is no more
res integra inasmuch as the Apex Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority Vs Manoharlal and others reported
in (2020) 8 SCC 129 having extensively discussed and
deliberated the aforesaid aspect of the matter at paragraphs
366.1 to 336.9 has answered the questions raised in the said
matter in the following terms:
"366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the
award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of commencement of
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7510
the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has
to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act.
366.2. In case the award has been passed within the window
period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim
order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided
under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it
has not been repealed.
366.3. The word "or" used in Section 24(2) between possession
and compensation has to be read as "nor" or as "and". The
deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2)
of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities
for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the
possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been
paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken,
compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly,
if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then
there is no lapse.
366.4. The expression "paid" in the main part of Section 24(2) of
the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court.
The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the proviso to
Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to
majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on
the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the
1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the
provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under Section
31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled,
interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-
deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of
land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect
to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation
under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the "landowners" as on the
date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the
1894 Act.
366.5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation as
provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open to
him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due
to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court. The
obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under
Section 31(1). The landowners who had refused to accept
compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation,
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7510
cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is to be
treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section 24(1)(b).
366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act and as
contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest
report/memorandum. Once award has been passed on taking
possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in
State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the
2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse
under Section 24(2).
366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed
lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed
due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for
five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force, in a
proceeding for land acquisition pending with the authority
concerned as on 1-1-2014. The period of subsistence of interim
orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of
five years.
366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to new
cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings
of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on
the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does not
revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen
concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the
legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or
mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court
to invalidate acquisition."
16. The vehement submission being made by learned
counsel for the petitioners that answer No.3 at paragraph 366.3
of judgment of Apex Court to be read to mean that the
possession ought to have been taken before 5 years of coming
into force of the Act, 2013, does not appeal to this Court
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7510
inasmuch as such interpretation may run contrary to the
answer given at paragraph 366.9 of the very same judgment
which is already extracted hereinabove.
17. In other words if the award was passed and the
possession was taken and proceeding were concluded as on the
date of coming into force of Act, 2013 same cannot be
reopened on any count whatsoever which stand complied with
in this matter.
18. Yet another submission made by learned counsel for
petitioners is with regard to payment of compensation and
issuance of notice under Section 12(2) not having been
complied with, the award passed is non-est. Useful for this
purpose to refer to paragraphs 202 to 206 of the aforesaid
judgment of Apex Court which reads as under:
"202. Section 24(2) deals with the expression where
compensation has not been paid. It would mean that it has not
been tendered for payment under Section 31(1). Though the
word "paid" amounts to a completed event however once
payment of compensation has been offered/tendered under
Section 31(1), the acquiring authority cannot be penalised for
non-payment as the amount has remained unpaid due to refusal
to accept, by the landowner and Collector is prevented from
making the payment. Thus, the word "paid" used in Section
24(2) cannot be said to include within its ken "deposit" under
Section 31(2). For that special provision has been carved out in
the proviso to Section 24(2), which deals with the amount to be
deposited in the account of beneficiaries. Two different
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7510
expressions have been used in Section 24. In the main part of
Section 24, the word "paid" and in its proviso "deposited" have
been used.
203. The consequence of non-deposit of the amount has been
dealt with in Section 34 of the 1894 Act. As per Section 24(2), if
the amount has not been paid nor possession has been taken, it
provides for lapse. Whereas the proviso indicates amount has
not been deposited with respect to a majority of landholdings in
a case initiated under the 1894 Act for 5 years or more. The
period of five years need not have been specified in the proviso
as it is part of Section 24(2) and has to be read with it,
particularly in view of the colon and placement by the legislature
as held above. Two different consequences of non-deposit of
compensation are : (i) higher compensation in a case where
possession has been taken, payment has been made to some
and amount has not been deposited with respect to majority of
the holdings, (ii) in case there is no lapse, the beneficiaries
would be entitled to interest as envisaged under Section 34 from
the date of taking possession @ 9% p.a. for the first year and
after that @ 15% p.a.
204. The word "paid" has been defined in Oxford Dictionary to
mean thus:
"paid past and past participle of pay; Give a sum of money thus
owned."
(emphasis supplied)
Cambridge English Dictionary, defines "paid" as follows:
"being given money for something".
P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd Edn., 2005,
uses the following definition of "paid":
"Paid. Applied; settled : satisfied."
205. The word "paid" in Section 31(1) to the landowner cannot
include in its ambit the expression "deposited" in court. Deposit
cannot be said to be payment made to landowners. Deposit is on
being prevented from payment. However, in case there is a
tender of the amount that is to mean amount is made available
to the landowner that would be a discharge of the obligation to
make the payment and in that event such a person cannot be
penalised for the default in making the payment. In default to
deposit in court, the liability is to make the payment of interest
under Section 34 of the 1894 Act. Sections 32 and 33 (which
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7510
had been relied upon by the landowners' counsel to say that
valuable rights inhere, in the event of deposit with court, thus
making deposit under Section 31 mandatory) provide for
investing amounts in the government securities, or seeking
alternative lands, in lieu of compensation, etc. Such deposits,
cannot fetch higher interest than the 15% contemplated under
Section 34, which is in pari materia with Section 80 of the 2013
Act. Section 34 is in pari materia with Section 80 of the 2013 Act
in which also the similar rate of interest has been specified. Even
if the amount is not deposited in Reference Court nor with the
treasury as against the name of the person interested who is
entitled to receive it, if Collector has been prevented to make the
payment due to exigencies provided in Section 31(2), interest is
to be paid. However, in case the deposit is made without
tendering it to the person interested, the liability to pay the
interest under Section 34, shall continue. Even assuming deposit
in the Reference Court is taken to be mandatory, in that case too
interest has to follow as specified in Section 34. However,
acquisition proceeding cannot lapse due to non-deposit.
206. The concept of "deposit" is different and quite apart from
the word "paid", due to which, lapse is provided in Section 24 of
the 2013 Act. In the case of non-deposit for the majority of
landholdings, higher compensation would follow as such word
"paid" cannot include in its ambit word "deposited". To hold
otherwise would be contrary to provisions contained in Section
24(2) and its proviso carrying different consequences. It is
provided in Section 34 of the 1894 Act, in case payment has not
been tendered or paid, nor deposited the interest has to be paid
as specified therein. In Section 24(2) also lapse is provided in
case amount has not been paid and possession has not been
taken."
19. Thus reading of the aforesaid provisions of law,
answers given by the Apex Court would only lead to a
conclusion under the fact situation of the matter that, if at all
petitioners are entitled to it is only for the relief of payment of
applicable interest on the compensation determined and
nothing else.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7510
In that view of the matter petition is disposed of
reserving liberty to the petitioners to seek payment of interest
on the compensation as contemplated under applicable law.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE
SBN
